The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Let me be clear at the outset here: I am not trying to be controversial, or even original. To be sure, engaged employees do perform better on average and they are also less likely to quit or display counterproductive work behaviours (cheating, thieving, bullying, etc). So, yes, let's engage employees - especially given that most employees are not engaged at work and that disengagement is symptomatic of incompetent management.

That said, there is a dark side to employee engagement, and, particularly, to focusing so much on engagement that we end up neglecting other key drivers of organisational effectiveness and individual career success.

Let me summarise my argument with three simple points:

1) Engagement is a means rather than an end: For all the talk about employee wellbeing, happiness, and engagement, organisations tend to care about these issues for one simple reason, that they contribute to higher levels of employee productivity and retainment. Yes, believe it or not, there is a difference between your employer and your family, best friend, and partner, who actually care about your wellbeing just because they love you. The implication is straightforward: for organisations - especially for profit companies - engagement is an important topic of conversation because it concerns making more money. They are not in the business of making their employees happy, unless that makes their business more successful. In other words, for most organisations, interest in employee engagement is purely determined by the premise that engagement boosts motivation and productivity at work.

2) Engagement, like anything else, is better in moderation than in excess: Yep, engagement is no different from good wine or a delicious meal - it is better in moderate doses than in excessive quantities. Although the academic community of organisational psychologists and management scholars has long emphasised that "too much of a good thing can be a bad thing", laypeople (and, alas, most management professionals) appear to dislike the complexities and ambiguities associated with this principle. Let's face it: most people prefer a simple approach to ideas and are somewhat uncomfortable with grey zones... In line, they have embraced the popular belief that engagement is the driver of individual performance and must therefore be as high as possible. Yet, it is not difficult to understand why the relationship between engagement and performance may not be linear. Simple example: if employees are too engaged, they will be so happy that they wont experience a sense of urgency or drive at work - too much getting along does hinder your interests in getting ahead. On the other hand being totally disengaged may be more beneficial (for both the company and the employee) than being moderately engaged: at least disengaged individuals will look for other jobs and seriously consider quitting, which those who are marginally engaged wont do. In that sense, work is just like relationships: a really bad relationship does at least propel people to change, whereas a lukewarm, comfortable, uninspiring relationship may last a lifetime...

3) It's time to reverse the engagement-performance link: Although engagement and performance are correlated, performance gains are more likely to boost engagement levels than vice-versa. That is, if managers can push their employees to perform to their highest level, they will surely be engaged as a result of that. Conversely, if managers are just focused on keeping employees happy, their performance may or not increase as a result. This point is important because it aligns what managers and employees want, which is to be part of a winning team. Sports provides a brilliant analogy for this. For example, the best football managers (think Alex Ferguson, Jose Mourinho, or, more recently, el "Cholo" Simeone) are known for their tough and competitive spirit. Although they are seen as fair and competent, they don't tolerate laziness and spend little time schmoozing their players. Yet because they get their teams to achieve the unthinkable - not just outperforming their rivals, but over-performing vis-a-vis expectations - they end up engaging their players. But the key point is that their players' sense of purpose and meaning emerges as a result of how they perform and what they achieve. In short, although leadership affects performance via engagement, it affects engagement mostly via performance.

A final thought: perhaps the biggest problem underlying the whole engagement hype is that it creates unrealistic expectations for employees. We have come a long way from the early 20th century assembly lines and shifted from Fordism to mindfulness, wellbeing and work-life balance. OK, that's great: companies have been convinced that they should care about their employees' experience. But is it feasible to expect every single worker to be engaged? In other words, are there enough meaningful, exciting, and self-actualising jobs for everyone? Precisely. Paradoxically, managing (that is, lowering) people's expectations about how engaged they are likely to be at work, could actually boost employee engagement levels. It's always better to have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised, than to be overly excited to end up disappointed.

More importantly, if employees focused more on being pushed to the max and being part of a team that outperforms the competition, they may help their managers to prioritise the right goals. This would equate to making engagement the cherry on top of the cake rather than the actual cake.